On 01-Dec-10 10:40, Daniel Pittman wrote: > OTOH, there is a little cognitive dissonance in having a journaling > filesystem and keeping data in memory longer: one is to increase > reliability at the cost of performance, the other decreases reliability > in return for greater performance.[1]
Actually, I don't think so. When I had ext2, a power failure (like battery drained) meant a corrupt filesystem, files/directory structures damaged, bad free block counts, number of inode links, files in lost+found. With a journaling system, the stability of the fs is granted. Data, i.e. the contents of files can be lost, but I don't care. What I care, is next time I will be able to boot, and files that I did not write will not be damaged. If hd spun down, and I loose half hour's typing, too bad. But I will type that in again. If the fs dies, I can't rewrite it from scratch. Of course, if the data I write is important enough, I can always save, and then issue a sync command. Gee Ps: Am I right, and there's no Reply-To header?
